Wolverine vs. Krillin

Originally posted by dadudemon
The same still holds true for this statement, as well:

Hre was the exact response I gave you for that statement.

This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Go ahead and show me where you addressed my counter argument

We were talking about my counter argument not yours. Nice try trying to change the focus. Still waiting for you to address this:

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

No thanks. Go back and read it, yourself. Quote the counter argument and quote your reply that counters that counter argument. If it is just you repeating yourself and it is an actual legit counter argument, I'll concede.

Burden on proof is on you. You stated you made an argument then you have to prove it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I addressed this already, multiple times. Why are you talking in circles? Go back and read my replies and find where I addressed this already. I'll help jog your memory: remember the stuff about logical fallacies?

Which I responded with this:

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

Then you don't think I made up the rule now?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Well, it's not a misread on my part.

Yes, it is since the statement makes no sense.

The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

No I didn't. 🙂 But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".

No I didn't. But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".

Then you don't think I made up the rule now?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Answer right now.

So, you're saying that you didn't accuse me of making the rule up now?

You said above that you never claimed that I made it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?

Which was addressed and countered, inexorably. Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?

Here's one

The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Ugh. This is irrelevant to that which you responded. It is not even a tiny bit relevant.

It's very much relevant.

You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:

So, I'll repeat it:

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Answer the question:

"So, you didn't claim I made up the rule now?"

Because earlier in this very response post you claimed this:

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

So, which is it. Did I make it up or not?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that. 🙂

Where?

Because now you are claiming you never said I made it up here:

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You do know the argument, actually. Go back and read it and quote it back to me.

This is what I said initially:

"So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it. That's all I wanna know."

Which you responded

"Me thinks you know since I haven't been secretive about it."

NOW it's:

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

Which is it? Do you believe I made it up or not?

Originally posted by dadudemon

None of the above. 🙂

So, then what did you say about me making up the rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Why did you ignore that?

Ignore what?

I stated early on that it was an unstated rule. The first statement I made however was that it was just a rule, but I didn't clarify until the second or third post.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Not only did I address that

That's what I stated, I wasn't implying that you did address this. This is proof that you're not really reading my post. Why would you need to clarify this when I stated in agreement that you infact did address this?

Originally posted by dadudemon

No thanks. You can go back and read to find it or you can use the search function in both your browser and on KMC. Good luck!

Find what? You never told me where it was in the first place.

Originally posted by dadudemon

No it isn't. 🙂 Figured that's what you'd say, though.

How could you say no it isn't. When you were the one who asked me to define "It's"?

Originally posted by dadudemon

In order to address some of your points, I need you to define your ambiguous pronouns. Why? Because you're obviously misrepresenting my position with your "its" and "it's" so if I respond assuming you are properly representing my argument, then you can use that to have a shit fest heyday by pretending you got me via an ambiguous pronoun reference. I'm not knew to legal speak and contracts: what makes you think I'll fall for an ambiguous pronoun reference?

But, I did define "it's". The rule you claimed I made up, but now you're claiming this:

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

Or this

Originally posted by dadudemon

none of the above 🙂

As your position. Which is it?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Either you forgot my actual argument or you are purposefully ignoring it. Which one is it?

Your argument was this:

"Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly."

My response was this:

"Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?"

Still waiting for a response

Geez these posts are intense.

Poor Itachi facepalming all over those posts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that. 🙂

Addressed this already. Just read above.

Addressed this already.

What point?

Because here's what you stated in response to whether I made up the rule:

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."

Originally posted by dadudemon

Well, had you actually represented my side with a tiny bit of accuracy, maybe I could say yes to this last question. Since you continually fail to represent my arguments, sadly, I am unable to answer a yes or a no to this. 🙁

Arguments?

I'm only debating one thing with you: Did I make the rule up or not?
Here are your responses so far

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

Which is it? 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon

No you didn't. 🙂 In fact, you admit that you don't a bit later in your reply:

You're right, so I concede that I didn't say it from the onset just earlier on like I told you before.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Anyway, this is actually what you said (and you said nothing more after this, in the same post, which is why this started):

I said it was board culture and then you claimed I was making it up. Now, you're claiming this:

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

Which is it? 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon

No need to repeat your lies.

It's not a lie, they agreed and I repeat to your counter argument mine:

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

Originally posted by dadudemon

OH! So it wasn't the onset? Huh? Well, now...I know how to address your earlier points.

It wasn't.

But, I still stated it early on.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Now, with this new knowledge that my post applied to that, make another reply to that same section of my post.

Here it is again:

"Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing."

You already answered whether I made up the rule here:

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

Originally posted by dadudemon

No it's not and you're not. If that was all you're debating then why reply to everything else with that useless fluff?"

There is nothing else. Every post or every other post is about whether I made up the rule or not. This is proof you're not even reading what you posted. 😆

You guys are phucking queerbos.

Originally posted by Damborgson
Geez these posts are intense.

Hardly. These posts are not even close to intense. It's just Classic NES repeating himself and me pointing out that he's repeating himself. Nothing new has been covered in 2 pages.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Hre was the exact response I gave you for that statement.

This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Told you I didn't make up the rule dadudemon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh.

I'm going to start quoting my posts at you again if you keep talking in circles.

You made up that rule for this forum specifically because you did not want to have to deal with the results in this thread. Once I pointed out where you were wrong (and you could not find it in the rules, as well), you decided to back-peddle and then say it was an internet culture thing. You can change the goalposts to be about some sort of over-arching internet culture, all you want: that's not only a strawman, that's irrelevant.

Here's the quote:

"But, if you have to use the argument "it wasn't in the manga" or "it wasn't in the anime", then it shows you are hiding behind rules rather than staying in the spirit of a character vs. matchup. Rule hiding just to win an argument is lame, imo.

There are plenty of other things to talk about other than using "nope, only can use the manga" or "nope, can only use the anime" as points of contention. OP didn't specify: we are stuck with both. You can make your own thread and specify which sources you want to use for your matchup, though: that's not against the rules."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Why would two seperate posters echo the same sentiment if it wasn't a common practice?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true. Additionally, that's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy. But, at this point, you're just reaching.

Also, what you just did above was create another logical fallacy. It is called the "false dilemma".

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you basically admit that your argument was invalid. Cool.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "[b]Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."[/B]

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, which one is it?

Is it "your [my] argument does not have to be valid"

Or

"[An] argument does not have to be valid"

Is the argument exclusively my argument or is it just AN argument?

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you basically admit that your argument was invalid. Cool.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "[b]Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."[/B]

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong and here's why:

"[An] argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."

That was in response to this:

"I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it..."

You then created a false dilemma by stating the following: "Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both."

When those are the only two choices you've given when, in fact, there is another option: one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself.

Wish you would have gotten that point because I didn't want to explain it. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."
Wrong and here's why:

"[An] argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, which one is it?

Is it "your [my] argument does not have to be valid"

Or

"[An] argument does not have to be valid"

Is the argument exclusively my argument or is it just AN argument?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does it make a difference, at all, in the points I made? 🙂

It is both. I used one in a general sense as part of a requote so I did not have to type and in a specific, original, sense.

Note the brackets used around "An" in the requote I did. You're trying too hard. 🙁

You cherry picked one portion out of that post (the portion you cherry picked is in cherry picking red) and replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it does since the arguments contradict. Here's a refresher:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

Which made no sense since this conversational path was had because you got hung up on “Your” and “An”. And I explained why both “Your” and “An” were valid ways to word the same argument but you ignored it. Here is that explanation:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does it make a difference, at all, in the points I made? 🙂

It is both. I used one in a general sense as part of a requote so I did not have to type and in a specific, original, sense.

Note the brackets used around "An" in the requote I did. You're trying too hard. 🙁

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it does since the arguments contradict.

That’s how we ended up with me replying with:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong.

Towards which you replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
The same still holds true for this statement, as well:

"I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong."

I don't think you know what you're replying to. Go back through the convo and re-read to see why your replies are not making sense. I'll give you a hint, you should be responding to something about "An" and "Your".

Originally posted by Classic NES
Hre was the exact response I gave you for that statement.

This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

What did we learn from only this?
1. You argue in circles and have very little substance to the arguments you bring.
2. You lack the ability to follow a conversation beyond 3 or 4 volleys. If you can actually follow past 3 or 4 volleys, you choose not to do sao and instead, revert back to your mode of operation #1.
3. You ignore portions of posts that clearly destroy your arguments so you can revert back to #1. You do this so you can pretend that your arguments were never addressed as though you are somehow triumphant or victorious in some a very lame game you are playing. Most would call this trolling. Some would call it idiocy (if you are an idiot and are not intending to troll). I just think you’re bored.

Originally posted by Classic NES
We were talking about my counter argument not yours.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Nice try trying to change the focus.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Still waiting for you to address this:
That's not a false dilemma …rule?

However, I will treat this the same as I did the last one.
Let’s start at the beginning of this particular conversation thread (it starts out in a very similar manner as the previous one):

Originally posted by Classic NES
Told you I didn't make up the rule dadudemon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh.

I'm going to start quoting my posts at you again if you keep talking in circles.

You made up that rule for this forum specifically because you did not want to have to deal with the results in this thread. Once I pointed out where you were wrong (and you could not find it in the rules, as well), you decided to back-peddle and then say it was an internet culture thing. You can change the goalposts to be about some sort of over-arching internet culture, all you want: that's not only a strawman, that's irrelevant.

Here's the quote:

"But, if you have to use the argument "it wasn't in the manga" or "it wasn't in the anime", then it shows you are hiding behind rules rather than staying in the spirit of a character vs. matchup. Rule hiding just to win an argument is lame, imo.

There are plenty of other things to talk about other than using "nope, only can use the manga" or "nope, can only use the anime" as points of contention. OP didn't specify: we are stuck with both. You can make your own thread and specify which sources you want to use for your matchup, though: that's not against the rules."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Why would two seperate posters echo the same sentiment if it wasn't a common practice?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true. Additionally, that's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
I thought you stated … It can't be both.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy. But, at this point, you're just reaching.

Also, what you just did above was create another logical fallacy. It is called the "false dilemma".

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you basically admit that your argument was invalid. Cool.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "[b]Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."[/B]

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, which one is it?

Is it "your [my] argument does not have to be valid"

Or

"[An] argument does not have to be valid"

Is the argument exclusively my argument or is it just AN argument?

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you basically admit that your argument was invalid. Cool.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, "[b]Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."[/B]

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong and here's why:

"[An] argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."

That was in response to this:

"I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it..."

You then created a false dilemma by stating the following: "Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both."

When those are the only two choices you've given when, in fact, there is another option: one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself.

Wish you would have gotten that point because I didn't want to explain it. 🙁

Originally posted by Classic NES
Except that the fallacy you used already makes the choice for you. If it's an appeal to popularity that means you believe that the rule exists and I'm supporting it through an appeal to popularity. Otherwise how could a rule that doesn't exists be supported by popularity?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I made no such fallacy. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not true. Here's why:
"one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless of the content of the argument itself, that's a logical fallacy. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why it is called a logical fallacy: just because the masses believe it, does not mean it is true. And before you get too excited, that's in a general sense. I have soundly destroyed you in regards to KMC's "Anime 'Versus' Forum". But you like this goalpost moving thing.

So, let’s take a step back so you can continue to follow. Towards the very first portion of that latest section, I said:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I made no such fallacy. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
Let me remind you again:

Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a strawman. That is not my argument. You are misrepresenting my argument. It has never been, specifically, that you made up a rule that is generally understood by the interwebz on versus forums. Even after I have explained it to you about a dozen times now, why would you still hold that belief?

And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this "popularity rule" that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon.

In other words, no matter how you approach this topic, you will be categorically wrong in every direction. This is why you have now descended into illogical arguments and pseudo-words games.

So when you requited this at me:

Originally posted by Classic NES
Let me remind you again:

Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I addressed this already. You have yet to offer a counter to my reply to that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is false. You've failed considerably at addressing this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Go ahead and show me where you addressed my counter argument because it has not been posted, as of yet. Instead, you just repeated yourself. I could be wrong. Maybe I missed it. So show me and I'll concede if you actually countered it.

Here’s what you did:

Originally posted by Classic NES
We were talking about my counter argument not yours. Nice try trying to change the focus. Still waiting for you to address this:

…

Makes no sense for you to have done that. We are still missing that post of yours where you show how my massive pwn reply “failed considerably”. Where is that post, good sir? Hmmm? Anywhere? 😄
On to the next section of your fail.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Burden on proof is on you. You stated you made an argument then you have to prove it.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Which I responded with this:

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Then you don't think I made up the rule now?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strawman. That's not really what I said, you little sneak, you. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it is since the statement makes no sense.
The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it is since the statement makes no sense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strawman. That's not really what I said, you little sneak, you. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Told you I didn't make up the rule dadudemon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh.

I'm going to start quoting my posts at you again if you keep talking in circles.

You made up that rule for this forum specifically because you did not want to have to deal with the results in this thread. Once I pointed out where you were wrong (and you could not find it in the rules, as well), you decided to back-peddle and then say it was an internet culture thing. You can change the goalposts to be about some sort of over-arching internet culture, all you want: that's not only a strawman, that's irrelevant.

Here's the quote:

"But, if you have to use the argument "it wasn't in the manga" or "it wasn't in the anime", then it shows you are hiding behind rules rather than staying in the spirit of a character vs. matchup. Rule hiding just to win an argument is lame, imo.

There are plenty of other things to talk about other than using "nope, only can use the manga" or "nope, can only use the anime" as points of contention. OP didn't specify: we are stuck with both. You can make your own thread and specify which sources you want to use for your matchup, though: that's not against the rules."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Why would two seperate posters echo the same sentiment if it wasn't a common practice?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true. Additionally, that's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy. But, at this point, you're just reaching.

[color=red]Also, what you just did above was create another logical fallacy. It is called the "false dilemma". [/color

Originally posted by Classic NES
First of that's a Fallacy Fallacy.

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!

Wrong and here's why:

"[An] argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."

That was in response to this:

"I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it..."

You then created a false dilemma by stating the following: "Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both."

When those are the only two choices you've given when, in fact, there is another option: one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself.

Wish you would have gotten that point because I didn't want to explain it. 🙁

What you just did here is called a logical fallacy: it's called the strawman. You have improperly represented my argument and then argued against that malformed argument.

You tried to use a logical fallacy to support your position: I called you out on it. Prior to that, I showed you where you were lying to support your point.

Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such.

Actually, it doesn't because "you tried to use a logical fallacy to support your position: I called you out on it. Prior to that, I showed you where you were lying to support your point. Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."

Actually, it doesn't. The latter functions as an independent criticisms of your actions: it does not rely on on the factual incorrectness of the statements in the argument to function as a statement of fallacy on your part.

That's a logical fallacy: you are now moving the goalposts.

You, once before, properly represented my argument. But now you want to argue something I have not been arguing.

Here, let's remind you of your own words and understanding of my side of the argument:

""Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction[;] unless specified[,] it's manga only."

Punctuation added for readability but those are your original words.

So, would you like to:

1. Stick with both your factually incorrect statement about having supporters while also committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

or

2. Would you like to go back to moving the goalposts?

or

3. The third option where you concede the following which I pointed out, earlier:

"But, if you have to use the argument "it wasn't in the manga" or "it wasn't in the anime", then it shows you are hiding behind rules rather than staying in the spirit of a character vs. matchup. Rule hiding just to win an argument is lame, imo.

There are plenty of other things to talk about other than using "nope, only can use the manga" or "nope, can only use the anime" as points of contention. OP didn't specify: we are stuck with both. You can make your own thread and specify which sources you want to use for your matchup, though: that's not against the rules."

Originally posted by Classic NES
I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is simultaneously popular. That's a contradiction.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would agree with you if this were any other subforum vs. But the rules clearly allow both anime and manga and makes a distinction that we use the characters and don't have to keep it anime anime or manga manga. It is up the OP, not you. OP did not specify, therefore, all are fairgame.

On top of that, there's the fact that the creator said both media formats are canon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You made up that rule for this forum specifically because you did not want to have to deal with the results in this thread. Once I pointed out where you were wrong (and you could not find it in the rules, as well), you decided to back-peddle and then say it was an internet culture thing. You can change the goalposts to be about some sort of over-arching internet culture, all you want: that's not only a strawman, that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Classic NES
The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Address this, already, in this same set of replies. Just scroll up.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Then you don't think I made up the rule now?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Answer right now.

So, you're saying that you didn't accuse me of making the rule up now?

You said above that you never claimed that I made it up.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Here's one

The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's very much relevant.

You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:

So, I'll repeat it:

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Told you I didn't make up the rule dadudemon.

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh.

I'm going to start quoting my posts at you again if you keep talking in circles.

You made up that rule for this forum specifically because you did not want to have to deal with the results in this thread. Once I pointed out where you were wrong (and you could not find it in the rules, as well), you decided to back-peddle and then say it was an internet culture thing. You can change the goalposts to be about some sort of over-arching internet culture, all you want: that's not only a strawman, that's irrelevant.

Here's the quote:

"But, if you have to use the argument "it wasn't in the manga" or "it wasn't in the anime", then it shows you are hiding behind rules rather than staying in the spirit of a character vs. matchup. Rule hiding just to win an argument is lame, imo.

There are plenty of other things to talk about other than using "nope, only can use the manga" or "nope, can only use the anime" as points of contention. OP didn't specify: we are stuck with both. You can make your own thread and specify which sources you want to use for your matchup, though: that's not against the rules."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Why would two seperate posters echo the same sentiment if it wasn't a common practice?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true. Additionally, that's a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Classic NES
I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy. But, at this point, you're just reaching.]

Also, what you just did above was create another logical fallacy. It is called the "false dilemma".

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong and here's why:

"[An] argument does not have to be valid in order for one to point out the argument itself is a logical fallacy."

That was in response to this:

"I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it..."

You then created a false dilemma by stating the following: "Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both."

When those are the only two choices you've given when, in fact, there is another option: one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself.

Wish you would have gotten that point because I didn't want to explain it. 🙁

Originally posted by Classic NES
Except that the fallacy you used already makes the choice for you. If it's an appeal to popularity that means you believe that the rule exists and I'm supporting it through an appeal to popularity. Otherwise how could a rule that doesn't exists be supported by popularity?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why it is called a logical fallacy: just because the masses believe it, does not mean it is true. And before you get too excited, that's in a general sense. I have soundly destroyed you in regards to KMC's "Anime 'Versus' Forum". But you like this goalpost moving thing.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Believe whats true?

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anything. I was explaining how that type of fallacy works, for you, because I'm awesome like that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

So, to finally end this and stomp out this particular conversation thread: of course I cherry picked that quote: you simply did not understand what was happening. The second portion of that quote that I cherry picked was literally irrelevant to the point I was making that you ignored. I have clearly shown that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Answer the question:

"So, you didn't claim I made up the rule now?"

Because earlier in this very response post you claimed this:

So, which is it. Did I make it up or not?

Addressed this, already, in this same set of replies. Just scroll up.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Where?

Because now you are claiming you never said I made it up here:

Addressed this, already, in this same set of replies. Just scroll up.

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is what I said initially:

"So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it. That's all I wanna know."

Which you responded

"Me thinks you know since I haven't been secretive about it."

NOW it's:

Which is it? Do you believe I made it up or not?

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, then what did you say about me making up the rule?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Ignore what?

I stated early on that it was an unstated rule. The first statement I made however was that it was just a rule, but I didn't clarify until the second or third post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's what I stated, I wasn't implying that you did address this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is proof that you're not really reading my post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would you need to clarify this when I stated in agreement that you infact did address this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Find what? You never told me where it was in the first place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How could you say no it isn't. When you were the one who asked me to define "It's"?

But you said:

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you believe me when I stated that it's an actual trend?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Define "it's".

But, no, I have no interest in discussing that topic.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's being the rule you claimed I made up.

And, that's our only discrepancy and has always been.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it isn't. 🙂 Figured that's what you'd say, though.

Originally posted by Classic NES
How could you say no it isn't. When you were the one who asked me to define "It's"?

Now, I can understand had I worded my reply like so: “No ‘it’s’ not.” But I didn’t. So there was no reason for you to confuse my statement as disagreeing with your definition of “it’s”. The way I worded that sentence is not even in a form of “it’s”. 😬

Originally posted by Classic NES
But, I did define "it's". The rule you claimed I made up, but now you're claiming this:

Or this

As your position. Which is it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument was this:

Wrong. That’s your argument that I’m quoting back at you. You said it was a misunderstanding on my part about your argument. I quoted your argument back at you to show that it was hardly a misunderstanding on my part because you are speaking in definitive and authoritative terms.
Let’s go back to square one to show you where you went wrong, again:
You said:

Originally posted by Classic NES
The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Look, you made up KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rule. You can't do that! Naughty Classic NES, naughty naughty. naughty

To which you said:

Originally posted by Classic NES
Actually, that's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that it was a rule made by the mods, just an unspoken one that versus debaters tend to follow. When you referenced "internet culture" like you did earlier. I'm pretty sure you knew I meant that it wasn't a rule made by the mods.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly. 313

And why would I say that? Here’s a refresher:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Are you still asserting I made that rule up

Originally posted by Classic NES
then claiming you don't know what "it" is

Originally posted by dadudemon
In order to address some of your points, I need you to define your ambiguous pronouns. Why? Because you're obviously misrepresenting my position with your "its" and "it's" so if I respond assuming you are properly representing my argument, then you can use that to have a shit fest heyday by pretending you got me via an ambiguous pronoun reference. I'm not knew to legal speak and contracts: what makes you think I'll fall for an ambiguous pronoun reference?

Originally posted by Classic NES
then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses.

Originally posted by Classic NES
All at once?"

Originally posted by Classic NES
Still waiting for a response

Originally posted by Classic NES
What point?

Because here's what you stated in response to whether I made up the rule:

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Arguments?

I'm only debating one thing with you: Did I make the rule up or not?
Here are your responses so far

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

Which is it? 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
You're right, so I concede that I didn't say it from the onset just earlier on like I told you before.

“You're right, so I concede that I didn't say it from the onset, just earlier on like I told you before.”
So let me get this straight, you did not say it was “internet culture” from the onset…you said it even earlier? You do know that you used a comparative just then, right? “earlier” literally means Earlier than the phrase that it is modifying: it’s an adjective. So how could you have made that statement prior to the onset of the conversation? Are you getting into negative history, here? Are you making some sort of deep philosophical statement about the discontinuity of linear time by your perceptions or something? Or did you simply mean the following:
“You're right, so I concede that I didn't say it from the onset, I said it towards the beginning like I told you before.”
I know that’s what you meant because it doesn’t make any sense any other way.

But is that statement even true (the one I amended)?: no.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I said from the onset that it was board culture...

See here that you tried to claim you said it from the ‘onset’ when you definitely did not. Why is that important to our discussion?

Because of this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

Originally posted by Classic NES
I said it was board culture and then you claimed I was making it up.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's not a lie, they agreed and I repeat to your counter argument mine:

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty because neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing: "Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only."

"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.

Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:

'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

That quote is yours."

And instead of actually addressing the horrendously obvious pwn I delivered to your face, you ignored that entire portion of my post, entire, and just replied with the same thing.
Again, Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:
'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'
That quote is yours."
Here is what they actually said:
Nemebro said:

Originally posted by NemeBro
If you want to use the DBZ anime, Super Saiyan Goku gets hurt by elephants and pebbles, and Goku and Piccolo combined struggle to lift a bus.

Don't use it, seriously.

That’s definitely not the same thing as saying: 'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

Lek Kuen said:

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I get what he's saying, While I personally agree with you on the whole multiple canons thing DDM, most people don't accept the anime as evidence at all hence his view.

The pure contradictory nature of your statement doesn’t even make sense. Let’s break it down:
“Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction…”
Well that’s probably because it’s an anime versus board, not an anime and manga versus board like KMC’s. Did you not realize that you started out the sentence with “anime”? If it was an anime versus board, then of course it wouldn’t use the manga. But you mess that up even more towards the end.

You finish off that statement with the following: “…unless specified, it's manga only.”
“Manga only” on an Anime versus board? That makes no sense and it is definitely not what Nemebro and Lek Kuen said.
Additionally, if I were to correct your statement:
'Anime AND manga versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction. Unless specified, it's manga only.'
Then why call it an “Anime AND Manga” versus board if it’s manga only? That doesn’t even make sense and that’s definitely not what Lek or Nemebro said.

Do you see the problem, now?

Originally posted by Classic NES
It wasn't.

But, I still stated it early on.

That's better. I respectfully accept this concession from you.

Originally posted by Classic NES
You already answered whether I made up the rule here:

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

Originally posted by Classic NES
There is nothing else. Every post or every other post is about whether I made up the rule or not. This is proof you're not even reading what you posted. 😆

Note: There may have been several label mistakes...but, I did what I could consider the length required to respond.

".... and the flurry of punches delivered by dadudemon has dropped Classic NES to the canvas. Classic was able to block and parry with a few good looking counter punches but the overwhelming assault by dadudemon may have just been too much."

"That's right Bob and now the question is will Classic be able to answer the 10-count and continue this bout."

"Classic isn't out of this yet. He's back up and ready to come out swinging. Just look at the fire in his eyes!"

😮‍💨

Nice try trying to change gears, but I'll bite

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cherry picked one portion out of that post (the portion you cherry picked is in cherry picking red) and replied:

Red? You mean Green right, because the first time you posted this ad nasuem. The highlight was green not red.

Also, you never addressed this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

But before we continue with my next reply, what you did here confused yourself. Because you picked one section of my post and smashed together with another when those two sections were responding to two other sections from yours.

That's ironic because that's what you've been doing to me. You never addressed this

Also, you never addressed this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Which made no sense since this conversational path was had because you got hung up on “Your” and “An”. And I explained why both “Your” and “An” were valid ways to word the same argument but you ignored it.

The "your and an" was my weakest point. Which you have to attack because you can't address my point. In the very same post no less:

Originally posted by Classic NES

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

Or here:

Originally posted by Classic NES

I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both.

The there's this:

Your argument was this:

"Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly."

My response was this:

"Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?"

Still waiting for a response

Originally posted by dadudemon

AND you also said:

Here's the full quote nitpicker

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

What this amounts to is you just lacking the attention span to want to continue down the same conversational path.

Here's the full quote nitpicker

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Which, again, is out of context. You’re wanting to refocus the attention on another argument we were having while ignoring why you were wrong about the “Your” and “An” point I made.

The "your and an" was my weakest point. Which you have to attack because you can't address my point. In the very same post no less:

Originally posted by Classic NES

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

Or here:

Originally posted by Classic NES

I thought you stated that it's not true that other people chimed in. So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both.

The there's this:

Your argument was this:

"Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly."

My response was this:

"Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?"

Still waiting for a response

Originally posted by Classic NES

What did we learn from only this?
1. You argue in circles and have very little substance to the arguments you bring.
2. You lack the ability to follow a conversation beyond 3 or 4 volleys. If you can actually follow past 3 or 4 volleys, you choose not to do sao and instead, revert back to your mode of operation #1.
3. You ignore portions of posts that clearly destroy your arguments so you can revert back to #1. You do this so you can pretend that your arguments were never addressed as though you are somehow triumphant or victorious in some a very lame game you are playing. Most would call this trolling. Some would call it idiocy (if you are an idiot and are not intending to troll). I just think you’re bored.

This is just one big Ad Hominem, I'm not gonna waste time with his

Just address this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Actually, you mentioned your counter argument, I then mentioned my counter to your counter argument. Since it is wordy and redundant to say “counter to your counter argument”, one can just say “counter argument” because that’s what all the arguments are after the first arguments are made: counters. This is why, in English, we do not say, “re-re-rewash your clothes”. We just say, “rewash”

Where's the counter to this argument:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

The there's this:

Your argument was this:

"Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly."

My response was this:

"Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?"

Originally posted by dadudemon

I did not try to change the focus. I directed you to my counter argument to your counter argument that you ignored.

This false because you never address this or quote it ad verbatim. You just cherrypick and dodge this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Furthermore, you'r changing the focus by back peddling to play this quote game

Originally posted by dadudemon

Let’s start at the beginning of this particular conversation thread

You just misquoted me. Why are ellipses even there? I never typed this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma …rule?

Also this here:

Originally posted by Classic NES

Still waiting for you to address this:

See the colon?

That means I'm gonna list something. Something that you never addressed like so:

Originally posted by Classic NES

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Among many other things you dodge.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Woah…woah…woah! Hold on, there. There is pretty much the answer to every single one of your questions and problems.

I like this quote because it proves that you're not reading anything I say:

From that quote

Originally posted by dadudemon

It has never been, specifically, that you made up a rule that is generally understood by the interwebz on versus forums.

It's never been that position and yet later on you say this when asked the same question about the rule:

Originally posted by dadudemon

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."

[QUOTE=13997034]Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]
none of the above

here's you mocking me

Originally posted by dadudemon

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

Which is it?

😆

Originally posted by dadudemon

And herein lies the problem: you decided to inappropriately refocus the attention on you strawman argument, again. Instead, I was just talking in general about what a argumentum ad populum argument is. So this is why I had no choice but to reply with the following (with the section I specifically replied to, in red):

Which I addressed

Originally posted by Classic NES

How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

To which you replied (and it just gets sad, here, as you continually spiral into a hole of inability to follow the conversation thread):

Speak for yourself. Same as above:

Originally posted by Classic NES

How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Not my fault you don't get it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

So, to finally end this and stomp out this particular conversation thread: of course I cherry picked that quote:

All you do is cherrypick. So, that's not surprising in the least.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I have clearly shown that.

Sure you did, by cherrypicking and being intellectual dishonest.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You just acknowledged it, there. 🙂 No getting around it: you just admitted that you did try to pass it off as a rule.

Because you were referring to the rules of the versus forum. I called it an unspoken rule in that very post you quoted. Should have cherrypcked better.

😉

Originally posted by dadudemon

It makes no sense for you to have to clarify that you weren’t implying that I did address that because I’m reminding you that I did address it.

Typo

Should have read:

That's what I stated, I wasn't implying that you "didn't" address this.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The first problem is you literally forgot that just one post prior you said that “It's through appeal to popularity which is wrong.” I had no choice but to clarify that since you said it was wrong, still, even after all these pages. The second problem is you actually acknowledged that I addressed it. If you know I have addressed it and we both agree that you conceded the point, why bring it up anymore, at all?

Actually I never said that appeal to popularity is wrong. That's an outright lie. Second address what again? I never bring back the points
I concede, you do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I sure did. And I even told you to use the search feature. What this amounts to is you are simply trolling, now. You want to argue in circles because this is all you have. You know you have been soundly destroyed so you refuse to go back and search for points, that you yourself are wanting (I don’t need them…I’ve already made the points), and you are the one with the problem in becoming lost. So why should I have to go back and find posts for you when I don’t need them? You do know it took my 20 seconds to find the post you are looking for, right? Here’s another hint for you: search for that word you are looking for but used the advanced search feature and use my KMC name to filter. 😐

This is the funniest post you've made so far. You are replicating the entire argument and no matter how incorrectly you've addressed this. You are still going back and readdressing old post. Yet, now you want me to find a logic fallacy that you accused me of? Why not just repost with all the other post I supposedly made?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Lol! I guess this was just a simple mistake on your part? I know it is getting difficult to keep track of the convos, so no worries.

But you said:

To which I asked:

To which you said:

To which I replied:

And, again, here is what you last said which makes no sense:

How could I? Because you just defined what “it’s” meant so now I can answer that question.

Wait, what? Let's re clarify, because this is funny.

You asked me to define "It's"

Here:

Originally posted by dadudemon

Define "it's".

I respond:

Originally posted by Classic NES

It's being the rule you claimed I made up.

Then you say:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No it isn't. Figured that's what you'd say, though.

So, then what is it's?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Here, to make things easier on you, substitute “It’s” for what you defined.

You said the definition was wrong. Why continue to ask me to define it?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Now your statement because:
Now, here is “it’s”: the rule you claimed I made up
And here is the question you asked: So, you believe me when I stated that it's an actual trend?
All I have to do now is substitute:
“So, you believe me when I stated that the rule you claimed I made up is an actual trend?”

FTFY

And, can you answer now?

“So, you believe me when I stated that the rule you claimed I made up is an actual trend?”

Originally posted by dadudemon

I’m claiming my position is a negative? That makes little sense.

Me: “Your honor, I am not claiming that as my position.”
You: “AHA! So your position is actually that you don’t claim that as your position!”
Me: “Errr…that’s hardly a position I can claim. I’m telling what my position is not, not what it is.”
Also, how come you missed out on the “knew” gem in my post? I was hoping someone would notice. You failed me. 🙁

Actually, I've been asking you what your position on whether I made up the rule. So, then I ask once again, what is your position on whether I made up that rule?

Like before:

"Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?"

Originally posted by dadudemon

Wrong.

What's wrong?

You didn't even bother to quote the whole post.

Originally posted by dadudemon

That’s your argument that I’m quoting back at you.

What argument?

You didn't even bother to quote the whole post.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You said it was a misunderstanding on my part about your argument. I quoted your argument back at you to show that it was hardly a misunderstanding on my part because you are speaking in definitive and authoritative terms.

What argument?

You didn't even bother to quote the whole post.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Let’s go back to square one to show you where you went wrong, again:
You said:

Yes, lets:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

Meaning you believe I made up that it was an unspoken rule. So this:

Originally posted by dadudemon

I’m claiming my position is a negative? That makes little sense.

Me: “Your honor, I am not claiming that as my position.”
You: “AHA! So your position is actually that you don’t claim that as your position!”
Me: “Errr…that’s hardly a position I can claim. I’m telling what my position is not, not what it is.”
Also, how come you missed out on the “knew” gem in my post? I was hoping someone would notice. You failed me. 🙁

Is not valid and you lied when you made it seem you had no position.

Thanks for proving this to me right.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Nope! That’s not representative of my argument so I can’t agree to that.

Yes, it is. This is you:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I claimed to not know what “it” was because:

Yet, you said my definition was wrong:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No it isn't. Figured that's what you'd say, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon

That claim actually came wwaaaay before the previous one so using a “then” in that long sentence was not appropriate. But, no, that’s also not what I did sense this statement is predicated on the prior 2 statements being true so I can’t agree to this statement since it carries some baggage with it if I do agree to it.

It was that appeal to authority you made at the start. It's not "wwaaaay" back.

Also, the red highlighted text explains why you've been dodging it. Among many other things.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You have your answers, now. To quote, “Addressed this, already, in this same set of replies. Just scroll up.” What point? It’s in there for you. 🙂

Here is the full quote

Originally posted by Classic NES

Arguments?

I'm only debating one thing with you: Did I make the rule up or not?
Here are your responses so far

"But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that."
"

"none of the above"

But earlier it was:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Why are you triumphantly parading those two statements as though they are contradictory and/or mutually exclusive when neither is true? Those two statements mean the same thing in the context of the conversation. None of your options are correct because I never said them in the context you are presenting them.

Actually, I just wanted you to clarify your position. Glad you did it, because it proves that you're lying. Here is your opinion:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

It's not "None of the above"

Originally posted by dadudemon
You need more punctuation, man. Here, I’ll help you make your sentence make more sense:

“You're right, so I concede that [b]I didn't say it from the onset, just earlier on like I told you before.”
So let me get this straight, you did not say it was “internet culture” from the onset…you said it even earlier?[/B]

Not even earlier.

Just early on, but not on the onset. My bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon

But is that statement even true (the one I amended)?: no.

Yes, it is true since I quoted it before.

Originally posted by dadudemon

See here that you tried to claim you said it from the ‘onset

This is a lie, I just stated it wasn't at the onset just early on. I used "earlier" instead of "early" by mistake.

Originally posted by dadudemon

That’s why it is extremely important for you to admit that you definitely did not, approach the topic “from the onset”, with the ‘internet culture’ argument. t

Your first post quotes me admitting, the very thing you're asking me to do.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Saying I claimed you were making it up will never be representative of my argument. Ever.

It is representative of your argument, because you stated it:

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post.

That's an accusation I making it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon

And that was countered with this very poignant and accurate point:

And instead of actually addressing the horrendously obvious pwn I delivered to your face, you ignored that entire portion of my post, entire, and just replied with the same thing.
Again, Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:
'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'
That quote is yours."
Here is what they actually said:
Nemebro said:

That’s definitely not the same thing as saying: 'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

Lek Kuen said:

That’s definitely not the same thing as saying: 'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

The pure contradictory nature of your statement doesn’t even make sense. Let’s break it down:
“[b]Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction…”
Well that’s probably because it’s an anime versus board, not an anime and manga versus board like KMC’s. Did you not realize that you started out the sentence with “anime”? If it was an anime versus board, then of course it wouldn’t use the manga. But you mess that up even more towards the end.

[/B]

Which I countered with this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

You never responded to it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You finish off that statement with the following: “…unless specified, it's manga only.”
“Manga only” on an Anime versus board? That makes no sense and it is definitely not what Nemebro and Lek Kuen said.
Additionally, if I were to correct your statement:
'Anime AND manga versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction. Unless specified, it's manga only.'
Then why call it an “[b]Anime AND Manga” versus board if it’s manga only? That doesn’t even make sense and that’s definitely not what Lek or Nemebro said.[/B]

I repeat:

Which I countered with this:

Originally posted by Classic NES

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

Originally posted by Classic NES

Note: There may have been several label mistakes...but, I did what I could consider the length required to respond.

There's always been label mistakes with your post. I have no problem with it.